Why Do Unbelievers Come Here?

[InterestedAtheist]

This is the point that you keep repeating, over and over, again.
Christianity was never about an invisible God, Christianity is just the opposite.

God in human form (Jesus, the Word) that you could speak to, listen to, and hug if you wanted to.

Unverified you say?

The whole point of the plethora of authors in the Bible is the widespread, encounters with the living God.

You need to take a step back and rethink Christianity. Over 500 witnesses of the risen Christ!

So...we can see Jesus now? We can see God now?
No?
Sounds like invisible to me.
As for Paul's five hundred witnesses - I take it you are referring to them - bear in mind that what we have is Paul telling people that five hundred witnesses exist. In other words, all we have for it is Paul's word.

Look, I'm sorry, I know you think this is convincing. But as evidence goes, the what we have for God, Jesus and Christianity is just incredibly thin and not worth taking into account. Which is why only Christians have any interest in it at all. Historians, scientists, cosmologists...they may or may not be Christians in their private life, but as far as their fields of study are concerned, Christianity is completely irrelevant.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But we're not in a university. Or a school, or a country club, or at a friend's dinner party. We're in a forum for debating, and specifically the section which is set up "for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith."
Arguing is what we're supposed to be doing here. It's why we came here. Yes, there are rules to prevent outright antisocial behaviour, and rightly so, because it tends to be detrimental to communication. But telling someone they're wrong, and why? That's our purpose on the Christian Apologetics forum.

I don't mind a forthright discussion and the limited debate, but I do get very quickly tired of various forms of Dawkin's type sarcasm, rhetoric, polemics, and other assorted chutzpah which I don't really feel belongs at the Table of Discussion. However, if you're implying that you atheists don't see this Christian Apologetics forum as a Table but rather as a Gladiatorial Arena, then I'll oblige. I won't "happily" oblige, but I will oblige.

Good for you. And if I were to go to a church service, I would certainly not roll my eyes, laugh at the funny bits in the sermon or ask people if they seriously believed this nonsense. I would sit quietly and respect the group's wishes.
On the other hand - if a church were enlightened enough to invite an atheist to their group, for the purpose of testing their faith and seeking out weaknesses in their arguments, I would behave there much as I do now. And if an atheist group were to invite you to attend for the express purpose of debating them - well, you'd debate them, wouldn't you?

Actually no, I wouldn't. I would be as "Wise as a Serpent, but as Harmless as a Dove......!!!"

In short: we are here to argue politely. And that doesn't mean we can't tell people they're wrong, not reading or comprehending, or in denial.

Ok. But just keep in mind that my definition of what it means to "tell people they're wrong" should include some kind of additional 'educational bit' to clearly and more extensively 'show' them why they're wrong, rather than to just keep tossing unilateral monologues of polemics and rhetorical questions their way in a constant pounding fashion as if one was wearing Voltaire's Iron Glove.

 

[Silmarien]

And saying that atheists are setting themselves up for failure by being combative seems close to what has come to be known as "concern trolling".

I'm not saying that atheists are setting themselves up for failure by being combative. I'm saying that by constantly acting in a disrespectful manner, they reinforce negative stereotypes about atheism and leave people thinking that they have no morals. I have a much more negative picture of atheism than I did before joining this forum, and I am liberal. If atheists are concerned about things like social acceptance in majority Christian countries, they need to present themselves in a more careful manner.

Maybe you don't care, since you're in China, but there are atheists here who are really concerned about social acceptance, and I think they're right to be so.

So you're right, Silmarien. If Christine hangs about here she will not be meeting a typical atheist, and I accept the correction. But she will at least have a much better chance of learning about what atheists believe. Since she says she's only met one atheist before, who didn't want to talk to her about religion, I think the experience might help broaden her mind, and that's always a good thing for anyone.

I'm not sure a forum like this is even particularly good for learning what atheists believe, since atheism is not really a monolithic thing. Even as a former atheist myself, my first contact with the virulent online version of atheism was a bit of a shock. Very little of what goes on here has anything to do with what I used to believe, and I don't think matches up particularly well to any of my non-theistic friends as well, all of whom are kind of different, ranging from hard materialism to something more New Age-y. So overexposure to a certain kind of atheism is like overexposure to Evangelicalism: it's just going to give you a lopsided impression of what is really going on.

Atheists are combative in the Apologetics sub-forum because it's set up for debate, and debates are word-fights. Of course us atheists are here picking fights. If we start a thread that doesn't challenge a theist belief then we're technically outside of the guidelines of the sub-forum.

"All thread topics must contain an identifiable argument against or for the Christian faith."

I think most of us atheists spend most of our time doing other things besides hanging out here. I have a lot of fun arguing, but it's no "obsession". While we're hanging out in a boxing ring, we spend most of our time boxing. It's a little ridiculous to try and discern what kind of a person we are outside the ring based on that, so when people do, that ain't on us, sorry not sorry.

Can some of us be a little less insulting? Of course. Could some of us be a little smarter? Definitely. But should we pick less fights in a forum set up for debate? That's an unreasonable request.

The problem is that apologetics isn't just about arguments. The way people behave and treat other people in a forum like this is actually important, because if someone looks like an unstable mess who is only out to pick fights with people, they make their whole position look morally problematic. There are people who have left Christianity specifically because of the way Christians act on this forum, and atheistic misbehavior can have somewhat similar consequences.

For example, a couple of years ago I would have been horrified at the idea that atheists might be damned merely on account of their beliefs. Now I am convinced that some have allowed their beliefs to corrupt them into mockeries of what they were supposed to be, and that all of the warnings about disbelief are completely valid. This was a result of the "witness" of a handful of atheists on this forum, who have proved to be very effective Christian apologists despite themselves.

I don't have any problem with the way you present yourself here, Moral. I consider you to be one of the good, responsible ones, but if some of the more problematic behavior here can convince me that disbelief can be dangerous, what effect do people think this is having on folk of a more fundamentalist bent? It's not merely that people could be a little less insulting. Some of them are coming across as almost demonic, which is the sort of behavior that could easily dehumanize atheists as a group in the eyes of religious believers.

 

[zippy2006]

Atheists are combative in the Apologetics sub-forum because it's set up for debate, and debates are word-fights. Of course us atheists are here picking fights.

I wanted to wait until Silmarien replied before replying to this. And I did. And her reply is much better than mine. And now I am going to pick a word-fight with you.

...lol. Really, though. Is a debate a fight? Combat? A military operation? I don't see it. Some posters do try to pick fights, but I ignore them because their aim has little to do with debate, argument, give-and-take, or rationality.

 

[klutedavid]

So...we can see Jesus now? We can see God now?
No?

As I said before, Jesus Christ has been stamped into human history and even scholars readily admit this fact.

That the historical Jesus existed is not seriously questioned by scholars and Near East historians. By applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, we find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain. (wikipedia)

You can observe that historical Jesus through the ancient literature, which means that Jesus is very much an observable fact of history.

Sounds like invisible to me.

That is merely your subjective opinion and is not part of the discussion of the historical Jesus.

The God of Christianity is a visible God and you must recognize this to be the case. To reject this idea, the visible God in Christianity, is to misunderstand Christian doctrine. The God of the Koran may be invisible as that text states. But the Christian God is visible which the Christian text states.

As for Paul's five hundred witnesses - I take it you are referring to them - bear in mind that what we have is Paul telling people that five hundred witnesses exist. In other words, all we have for it is Paul's word.

Paul was not alone in his declaration of the risen Christ. There were other authors also that gave that same declaration of the risen Christ in the New Testament.

Highly unlikely, that Paul would tell the Corinthians that there were over five hundred witnesses of the risen Christ. Because Corinth was a trading port and the folk at Corinth could have within months, established whether or not Paul was telling the truth.

Look, I'm sorry, I know you think this is convincing. But as evidence goes, the what we have for God, Jesus and Christianity is just incredibly thin and not worth taking into account.

The Christian God is a historical figure.

The Christian God is a visible God.

The evidence is robust for both of these points.

Whether or not you wish to follow Jesus is a subjective matter. But the history of the visible God's interaction with humanity is strong.

Which is why only Christians have any interest in it at all. Historians, scientists, cosmologists...they may or may not be Christians in their private life, but as far as their fields of study are concerned, Christianity is completely irrelevant.

Cosmology is a scientific discipline.

The historical Jesus is accepted by historical scholars.

Of course Christianity is irrelevant to scientific disciplines, Jesus is irrelevant in economics also. But what has that got to do with the price of eggs.

 

[Moral Orel]

@Silmarien @zippy2006
The way you comport yourself in a debate is one thing, and your propensity to start an argument is another. When you guys point out abrasive styles of argument, I tend to agree. I argue abrasively myself sometimes, I just think I'm justified when I choose to do so. There's nothing wrong with having a high propensity for starting arguments on debate forums though, that's the point.

And "word-fight" is an apt description. I've never hit my wife, but we've fought, a lot. Not so much anymore. I've learned that it's okay to just let her be wrong most of the time.

 

[Silmarien]

The way you comport yourself in a debate is one thing, and your propensity to start an argument is another. When you guys point out abrasive styles of argument, I tend to agree. I argue abrasively myself sometimes, I just think I'm justified when I choose to do so. There's nothing wrong with having a high propensity for starting arguments on debate forums though, that's the point.

That depends on what your goal is, I think. There are atheists here who have said that their mission here is to make atheism more socially acceptable amongst Christians, and I think that is noble. I often have somewhat similar goals whenever I venture into the political subforums, since there's a lot of suspicion concerning anything left-leaning, and I'd rather counter that sort of knee-jerk negative reaction than win arguments. Okay, sometimes I just want to win arguments, but I don't think that's actually particularly helpful if your goal is to change people's minds.

I'm not saying that it's illegitimate to be aggressive on a debate forum, since obviously that's a part of why they exist. But there is a social cost to not being careful about this sort of thing. Obviously nobody is under any obligation to care about the social cost (or at least no atheist is, since I think Christians do have a genuine religious duty to care about the way their conduct is perceived by society at large), but that doesn't make it less real.

 

[zippy2006]

And "word-fight" is an apt description. I've never hit my wife, but we've fought, a lot.

So you get into a spat with your wife, and the next morning:

Co-Worker: How was your evening?
Orel: Do you like WWE? I had a debate with my wife.
​

I hardly think that intense, verbal marital disputes ought to be the standard for debates, arguments, or CF activity. I grant that word-fights exist, and that you have them with your wife. That doesn't mean that debates are word-fights.

In a fight you aim for dominance, submission, victory, injury, etc. In a debate or argument the aims are rather different. There you aim for truth, movement of the mind, convincing, and of course, victory too. Debates can devolve into fights, but not all debates are fights. When they do devolve the quality suffers and fallacies are often brought to bear. We have been debating the topic of humor for heaven-knows how long, and I don't think we've been fighting with each other.

Not so much anymore. I've learned that it's okay to just let her be wrong most of the time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@Silmarien @zippy2006
And "word-fight" is an apt description. I've never hit my wife, but we've fought, a lot. Not so much anymore. I've learned that it's okay to just let her be wrong most of the time.

.... that last thing you said is something I'd never be able to fully verbalize to my own wife.

 

[Moral Orel]

.... that last thing you said is something I'd never be able to fully verbalize to my own wife.

I tell her stuff like that all the time, and I get away with it too... cause she thinks I'm joking

 

[Moral Orel]

So you get into a spat with your wife, and the next morning:

Co-Worker: How was your evening?
Orel: Do you like WWE? I had a debate with my wife.
I hardly think that intense, verbal marital disputes ought to be the standard for debates, arguments, or CF activity. I grant that word-fights exist, and that you have them with your wife. That doesn't mean that debates are word-fights.

In a fight you aim for dominance, submission, victory, injury, etc. In a debate or argument the aims are rather different. There you aim for truth, movement of the mind, convincing, and of course, victory too. Debates can devolve into fights, but not all debates are fights. When they do devolve the quality suffers and fallacies are often brought to bear. We have been debating the topic of humor for heaven-knows how long, and I don't think we've been fighting with each other.

There are word-fights, and there are thumb-wars too, and neither of them require devolving into vicious behavior.

 

[Silmarien]

Gentlemen, I hate you all.

 

[zippy2006]

Gentlemen, I hate you all.

Hate!? You should thank us and consider yourself lucky. After all, you're not expected to marry a female!

 

[Moral Orel]

Gentlemen, I hate you all.

I know I crack jokes about my wife, but it's no serious misogyny thing. Honestly, I think you're one of the most insightful, intelligent posters here. Well, for a girl.

Ugh! I've been saving that joke for soooo long. You know where it really needs to go? Right after a woman makes a lengthy, serious post about the evils of feminism and how women need to submit to whatever men say. We've all seen 'em. Just quote the whole thing and then say, "That's a great post... for a girl." I just can't bring myself to do it to someone who put so much work into being serious though.

 

[Silmarien]

Hate!? You should thank us and consider yourself lucky. After all, you're not expected to marry a female!

Pffft, or anyone else. Where's the nearest desert?

I know I crack jokes about my wife, but it's no serious misogyny thing. Honestly, I think you're one of the most insightful, intelligent posters here. Well, for a girl.

Ugh! I've been saving that joke for soooo long. You know where it really needs to go? Right after a woman makes a lengthy, serious post about the evils of feminism and how women need to submit to whatever men say. We've all seen 'em. Just quote the whole thing and then say, "That's a great post... for a girl." I just can't bring myself to do it to someone who put so much work into being serious though.

Hahahaha, I could definitely get behind that.

 

[mama2one]

ot

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hate!? You should thank us and consider yourself lucky. After all, you're not expected to marry a female!

...Is there an escape hatch around here? I need an escape hatch from this thread, pronto!

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

1. I don't want to live in an echo chamber. Almost everyone I know and interact with regularly is either atheist, irreligious, or very liberal in their religion. The internet is the most convenient resource for exposure to opposing viewpoints. I consume conservative religious radio, podcasts and youtube videos, and talk to street preachers, for the same reason.

2. It's interesting.

3. I consider the public scrutiny of ideas and the reasoning behind them to be a civic duty.

4. On rare occasions, I like to peruse the 'Christians Only' sections and see what believers say about atheists when they know we can't respond.

In that order.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

1. I don't want to live in an echo chamber. Almost everyone I know and interact with regularly is either atheist, irreligious, or very liberal in their religion. The internet is the most convenient resource for exposure to opposing viewpoints. I consume conservative religious radio, podcasts and youtube videos, and talk to street preachers, for the same reason.
2. It's interesting.
3. I consider the public scrutiny of ideas and the reasoning behind them to be a civic duty.

Those all sound like excellent and responsible reasons.

4. On rare occasions, I like to peruse the 'Christians Only' sections and see what believers say about atheists when they know we can't respond.

What's especially interesting is to look and see the doubts that Christians have, which they often feel uncomfortable airing in front of us, but which they sometimes feel safer discussing with each other.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

As I said before, Jesus Christ has been stamped into human history and even scholars readily admit this fact.
That the historical Jesus existed is not seriously questioned by scholars and Near East historians. By applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, we find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain. (wikipedia)
You can observe that historical Jesus through the ancient literature, which means that Jesus is very much an observable fact of history.

Sure. The human preacher, Yeshua, is a fact of history. But the claim that this preacher was in fact the son of God is a whole other kettle of fish.

That is merely your subjective opinion and is not part of the discussion of the historical Jesus.

No, actually "can't be seen" is the definition of invisible.
Can you see Jesus, right now? Can you see God, right now? If so, perhaps you could give me a photo?
Because if you can't see Jesus or God, they're invisible. That's what "invisible" means.

The God of Christianity is a visible God and you must recognize this to be the case. To reject this idea, the visible God in Christianity, is to misunderstand Christian doctrine. The God of the Koran may be invisible as that text states. But the Christian God is visible which the Christian text states.

"I must recognise this to be the case", must I?
I'm sorry, klutedavid, but I'm afraid I can't recognise that God is visible if He can't be seen. It's kind of a contradiction, y'know?

Paul was not alone in his declaration of the risen Christ. There were other authors also that gave that same declaration of the risen Christ in the New Testament.

Yes. Four of them. Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
Tell me, when were these books written again? Just after Jesus's death, wasn't it?

Highly unlikely, that Paul would tell the Corinthians that there were over five hundred witnesses of the risen Christ. Because Corinth was a trading port and the folk at Corinth could have within months, established whether or not Paul was telling the truth.

You might like to see this article which addresses your objection.
500 Eyewitnesses to the Risen Christ? 9 Reasons Why It's Not Likely.
It's quite brief, so it should be no trouble for you to read, but to summarise the nine objections:
1. First, what does "appear" mean?
2. Who are these five hundred people? Names and addresses, please?
3. How many, after twenty years, would still be there and able to be questioned?
4. Who would make this trip? Even for a port, this was a major thing to undertake.
5. How many people would be willing to go and find out?
6. Who's going to question Paul on this?
7. What's these five hundred people's testimony's worth anyway?
8. Even if anyone did check on this and disprove Paul, what would it matter at the time?
9. Why did none of the other gospels mention this?
In short: what's to stop Paul from just having made this up? He probably did. What does it mean to us? Nothing at all.

The Christian God is a historical figure.
The Christian God is a visible God.
The evidence is robust for both of these points.
Whether or not you wish to follow Jesus is a subjective matter. But the history of the visible God's interaction with humanity is strong.

I hope you now understand why this is nonsense. The existence of Jesus is a matter of record, of sorts. The existence of God is a matter of religion, and nothing more.

Cosmology is a scientific discipline.
The historical Jesus is accepted by historical scholars.
Of course Christianity is irrelevant to scientific disciplines, Jesus is irrelevant in economics also. But what has that got to do with the price of eggs.

Everything.
Because it is only Christians who are impressed by apologetic arguments. Nobody else is in the slightest.
Now what you're doing here, klutedavid - and please read this carefully - is you're trying to smuggle an argument in. Because Christians believe Jesus to be the son of God, and because historians say that Jesus is a historical figure, you argue, that shows that God exists! But of course, it shows nothing of the sort.
God is not a figure in history.
The human Jesus is a figure in history.
The divine Jesus is not.

So:
Show me a history book by a reputable historian that features God in it. Not Jesus, not Christians, not the role of religion. The being, God.
And then show me a book about cosmology that explains the role of God in the formation of the universe.

I hope the point is now clear.